About Me

Saturday, February 06, 2016

Another good article from Wan, CEO of IDEAS in Malaysia, reposting. The photos I just added here and not part of the original article.
--------------

Lessons from the TPPA debate

by Wan Saiful Wan Jan. First published in The Star 2
February 2016

I am pleased that our parliament has voted for Malaysia
to sign the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (‪#‎TPPA). Over three days, both the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara
debated the issue and the government won the vote in both chambers.

However I am very disappointed by the way the vote was
won. Members of both chambers voted according to their party stance. Both BN
and the opposition voted in according the party lines.

If the parties had decided to use the parliamentary whip,
then why hold the special session at all? It was a waste of time and money
because ultimately no one used any brainpower in making their decisions. Their
parties decided for them.

Together with colleagues from IDEAS, I was in parliament
on the day of the special sitting to persuade the MPs to support our entry into
the TPPA. I met some BN MPs who were against the ‪#‎TPP and I also met some opposition MPs who were supportive of
the TPPA. It was a shame that none of them could speak their true mind in
parliament.

I would have preferred for the elected representatives to
follow their conscience. Then the special session would have meant something.

Nevertheless now that the vote is over, let us take stock
of what happened. If we look at the past three years leading up to the vote, we
must say kudos to the anti-liberalisation activists spearheading the campaign
against the TPPA. They were persistent, consistent and determined.

The anti-liberalisation movement operates globally and
have never failed to mobilise demonstrations when major trade deals are being
decided. There have been anti-liberalisation rallies at the meetings of the
World Bank, G8, the World Trade Organisations, and more, in various countries
around the world. The movement has now become more organised in Malaysia.

Their strategy is almost always the same globally. Focus
on spreading doubts and fear. Repeat the same mantra over and over again. Tell
the public that the issue is too complex for anybody to understand it all.
Organise the campaign early and don’t wait for the official text because the
actual enemy is liberalisation while the actual text is just a tool.

Force the public to compartmentalise the issues rather
than analysing the deal holistically. If one issue is answered, quickly move on
to the next one without acknowledging the clarification for the earlier issue.
Use selective data and statistics, and discredit others’ studies using any
means necessary. Ask detailed questions like “what is the impact of ISDS?” but
spread a generic message such as “America is evil” so that while the other side
is busy explaining boring technical facts, they can focus on their more “sexy”
rhetorical propaganda.

As a campaign strategy, they were effective. Many MPs I
spoke to expressed fear to vote for the TPPA because they felt that they would
be voting against “the people”. The anti-liberalisation activists campaigned
loud and long enough to create the impression that they represent public
opinion.

The reality is the opposite. A Pew Research Centre Spring
2015 Global Attitude Survey asked Malaysians “Would the TPPA be a good thing
for our country or a bad thing?”. Only 18 percent said that it would be a bad
thing.

The main lesson I learnt from the whole saga is that you
cannot allow others to determine how you dance. If you try to do that, you
might win some battles but you will not be able to cope in the overall war.

In the case of the TPPA, yes parliament may have passed
the motion for us to sign it. But that is just one tiny battle. I am pretty
certain that if we check the general temperature in the country now, we will
find that the anti-liberalisation sentiment has been strengthened. In the
overall effort to liberalise the economy, pro-reform initiatives are not
winning and may have become weaker.

As a result, we shouldn’t be surprised if a more
organised opposition is mounted when we go into FTA negotiations with the EU,
the European Free Trade Association, other RCEP partners, and more. The TPPA
experience has emboldened the anti-liberalisation groups and they will become
more effective in the future.

But please don’t get me wrong. I am not at all saying
that this is a negative development. On the contrary I feel it is healthy that
the public policy arena is becoming more hotly contested. It is a sign of a
maturing society. Now those who want to see less protectionism and more
competition to benefit the consumers must become more organised too.

And let me make another important clarification too. Even
though I think these anti-liberalisation campaigners are wrong, I believe they
are good people who are passionate about their cause. They are campaigning not
because they want to damage this country but because they love it.

What we need to do is to continue the debate on public
policy in a healthy way. Differences are normal and when it comes to public policy,
there will always be contestations.

Most of the thought-leaders at the top celebrate these
differences. They can challenge each other in a heated argument, while sipping
a friendly teh o ais and munching pisang goreng. Just as those higher up can be
civil to one another, so must we.